BOOM

Trending Searches

    SUPPORT
    BOOM

    Trending News

      • Fact Check 
        • Fast Check
        • Politics
        • Business
        • Entertainment
        • Social
        • Sports
        • World
      • Law
      • Explainers
      • News 
        • All News
      • Decode 
        • Impact
        • Scamcheck
        • Life
        • Voices
      • Media Buddhi 
        • Digital Buddhi
        • Senior Citizens
        • Videos
      • Web Stories
      • BOOM Research
      • BOOM Labs
      • Deepfake Tracker
      • Videos 
        • Facts Neeti
      • Home-icon
        Home
      • About Us-icon
        About Us
      • Authors-icon
        Authors
      • Team-icon
        Team
      • Careers-icon
        Careers
      • Internship-icon
        Internship
      • Contact Us-icon
        Contact Us
      • Methodology-icon
        Methodology
      • Correction Policy-icon
        Correction Policy
      • Non-Partnership Policy-icon
        Non-Partnership Policy
      • Cookie Policy-icon
        Cookie Policy
      • Grievance Redressal-icon
        Grievance Redressal
      • Republishing Guidelines-icon
        Republishing Guidelines
      • Fact Check-icon
        Fact Check
        Fast Check
        Politics
        Business
        Entertainment
        Social
        Sports
        World
      • Law-icon
        Law
      • Explainers-icon
        Explainers
      • News-icon
        News
        All News
      • Decode-icon
        Decode
        Impact
        Scamcheck
        Life
        Voices
      • Media Buddhi-icon
        Media Buddhi
        Digital Buddhi
        Senior Citizens
        Videos
      • Web Stories-icon
        Web Stories
      • BOOM Research-icon
        BOOM Research
      • BOOM Labs-icon
        BOOM Labs
      • Deepfake Tracker-icon
        Deepfake Tracker
      • Videos-icon
        Videos
        Facts Neeti
      Trending Tags
      TRENDING
      • #Operation Sindoor
      • #Pahalgam Terror Attack
      • #Narendra Modi
      • #Rahul Gandhi
      • #Waqf Amendment Bill
      • #Arvind Kejriwal
      • #Deepfake
      • #Artificial Intelligence
      • Home
      • freedom of expression
      • Media
      • We Need To Get Better At Covering...
      Media

      We Need To Get Better At Covering Studies About Fake News

      Coverage of a seminal and important study comes short if it doesn’t clarify the nature of the sample of a study — and what this means for our capacity to generalize.

      By - Alexios Mantzarlis |
      Published -  12 March 2018 8:29 PM IST
    • Boomlive

      For much of its existence as an explicit form of online journalism, relatively few academics were interested in fact-checking. No longer.

      Over the past few years, a growing number of scholars in the fields of politics, computer science, psychology and communication have turned their attention to the effect and reach of misperceptions and their corrections. This week, some of the most active in this field published in Science magazine a manifesto for future interdisciplinary work.

      Reactions to another study that appeared in this week’s issue of Science highlight the role of the media in accurately disseminating the findings of all this work — and how they often fail.

      In “The spread of true and false news online,” Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy and Sinan Aral, all at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, studied a huge sample of tweets about fact-checked claims published over the course of more than a decade.

      Vosoughi et al. find that stories rated “False” spread faster and wider than those rated “True.” This echoes findings of a smaller 2015 study by Andrew Guess, now at Princeton University, and the analysis that Craig Silverman, now at BuzzFeed News, had conducted while running emergent.info.

      Most coverage of the MIT findings reduced them to a simplistic dichotomy of the “truth” versus false news. Here are a few examples:

      • The BBC headlined its article “Fake news ‘travels faster,’ study finds.” It went on to write in no uncertain terms that false stories “reached more people than the truth.”
      • PBS ran a Scientific American story under the headline ”False news travels 6 times faster on Twitter than truthful news.”
      • For Reuters the story was “False news 70 percent more likely to spread on Twitter” with the body of the article adding that “false news was about 70 percent more likely to be retweeted by people than true news.”

      The problem is the study sample explicitly concentrates on what The Atlantic’s Robinson Meyer called “contested news.” A more accurate formulation, if undoubtedly clunky, would have been “fact-checked news found to be true” and “fact-checked news found to be false.”

      The researchers rightly shied away from making their own determinations of the veracity of online content, leaning instead on the findings of six fact-checking and debunking websites (some well-known, others less so). That is obviously not the full universe of real and false news, something co-author Sinan Aral confirmed on Twitter.

      Stories that no one has fact-checked — because their truthfulness is not presumably up for speculation — were not part of the study’s sample. Without being able to quantify them specifically, we should still be able to safely presume that these constitute the lion’s share of all “real news.”

      More research on “fake news” is fundamental, especially as the problem is increasingly attracting regulatory attention. Any action that seeks to dramatically alter the spread of information at a systemic level should be grounded in solid and public evidence.

      Yet too often the evidence that is starting to trickle out from academia is being trivialized and distorted. Simplified, then exaggerated.

      As I’ve pointed out in the past, I’m not immune from the tendency to simplify in headlines. Fact-checkers have rightly called me out for my own shortcomings.

      At the same time, coverage of a seminal and important study comes short if it doesn’t clarify the nature of the sample of a study — and what this means for our capacity to generalize.

      Collectively, we need to get better. We should be drawing many small lessons about misinformation from these new studies. Instead, we are hammering our audiences with an inaccurate generalization — that fakery is rampant and undefeatable.

      In the long run, this message will further increase distrust and disaffection in our online information ecosystem and prevent us from taking academically-sound small steps toward a shared solution.

      This story was originally published on Poynter and has been republished with permission.

      Tags

      Academiacontested newsFact Checkfake newsfalse newsmediamisinformationMITTwitter
      Read Full Article
      Next Story
      Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
      Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker. Please reload after ad blocker is disabled.
      X

      Subscribe to BOOM Newsletters

      👉 No spam, no paywall — but verified insights.

      Please enter a Email Address
      Subscribe for free!

      Stay Ahead of Misinformation!

      Please enter a Email Address
      Subscribe Now🛡️ 100% Privacy Protected | No Spam, Just Facts
      By subscribing, you agree with the Terms & conditions and Privacy Policy connected to the offer

      Thank you for subscribing!

      You’re now part of the BOOM community.

      Or, Subscribe to receive latest news via email
      Subscribed Successfully...
      Copy HTMLHTML is copied!
      There's no data to copy!